Abstract
In this paper we will focus on the notion of “implicit” or lexically unexpressed linguistic elements that are nonetheless necessary for a complete semantic interpretation of a text. We refer to “entities” and “events” because the recovery of the implicit material may affect all the modules of a system for semantic processing, from the grammatically guided components to the inferential and reasoning ones. Reference to the system GETARUNS offers one possible implementation of the algorithms and procedures needed to cope with the problem and enables us to deal with all the spectrum of phenomena. The paper will address at first the following three types of “implicit” entities and events:
-
the grammatical ones, as suggested by a linguistic theories like LFG or similar generative theories;
-
the semantic ones suggested in the FrameNet project, i.e. CNI, DNI, INI;
-
the pragmatic ones: here we will present a theory and an implementation for the recovery of implicit entities and events of (non-) standard implicatures.
In particular we will show how the use of commonsense knowledge may fruitfully contribute to find relevant implied meanings. Last Implicit Entity only touched on, though for lack of space, is the Subject of Point of View, which is computed by Semantic Informational Structure and contributes the intended entity from whose point of view a given subjective statement is expressed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text.
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL-98, Montreal, Canada.
Bresnan, J. (2000). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
ComLex. http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/comlex.
Delmonte, R. (2007–2009). Computational linguistic text processing. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics : Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Grosz, B. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(11).
Liu, H., & Singh, P. (2004). ConceptNet: a practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. At http://web.media.mit.edu/~push/ConceptNet.pdf.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Mueller, E. T. (2007). Modelling space and time in narratives about restaurants. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(1), 67–84.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (1983). 35(3), 427–440.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: exploration in comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5–6), 519–534.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hilsdale: Erlbaum.
Sidner, C. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 267–330). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Delmonte, R. A computational approach to implicit entities and events in text and discourse. Int J Speech Technol 11, 195 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-009-9049-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-009-9049-1